THE RUDOLF REPORT

11. HUNTING GERMAR RUDOLF1995, was entitled “Only a Victim of the ‘Father-figure of Neo-Nazism’?”. Under the Word “Neo-Nazism,” a picture of the accusedwas shown. The question raised by this newspaper headline waswhether Rudolf had been a victim of O. E. Remer, who was identifiedas the “Father-figure of Neo-Nazism”.In filming a copy of this article, the Südwestfunk bent the paper sothat the viewer would see only the words “Father-figure of Neo-Nazism” over the photograph of Rudolf. The viewer would unavoidablyreceive the impression that the harsh sentence on Rudolf was ajudicial determination that with Rudolf one was dealing with the father-figureof Neo-Nazism. It is difficult to imagine how media distortioncould get any worse.Many media sources considered the sentence handed down by thecourt as an insufficient condemnation of Rudolf, as can be seen fromseveral examples. On June 24, 1995, the Böblinger Bote wrote thatRudolf could be linked to National Socialist race doctrine. This completefabrication is so absurd and so far from any reality that it wasnever an issue during the course of the trial, nor was it mentioned inthe court’s spoken opinion giving the basis for the written verdict. Unfortunately,this did not hinder the court from inserting this unfoundedassertion into the written verdict for the sentence. 633On the same day, and despite Rudolf’s personal appeal, FrankSchwaibold of the Stuttgarter Nachrichten could not help but onceagain misconstrue the contacts between Rudolf and Remer, in that hewrote, Rudolf had been “provably in personal contact with Remerthree times”, where the word “personal” imputed a relationship betweenthe two that had never existed.On June 24, 1995, the Süddeutsche Zeitung outdid itself in manipulatingthe news. It wrote that Rudolf had occasionally been amember of the right-wing extremist Republican Party. But, in fact, Rudolfhad been a member of the party at a time when it was not considered“right-wing extremist” and even important members of the semiconservativeChristian Democrats (CDU/CSU) maintained contactswith members of the party. Whatever opinion the media and the Ger-633 Verdict of the District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94, pp. 15, 156ff. As evidence the courtused an unpublished writing of the accused. In it, Rudolf commented how the confirmation ofrevisionist theses might embarrass Jews. Records of the District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs83/94, Computer Data File 3, introduced on Jan. 26, 1995. Where there is racism in thesespeculative remarks is unclear.395